Raising the Stakes: Impacts of the Complete College Tennessee Act on Underserved Student Enrollment and Sub-Baccalaureate Credentials

Abstract

In 2010, Tennessee enacted the Complete College Tennessee Act (CCTA), which increased the proportion of state performance-based funding from 5.45% to 85% and added a 40% funding premium for progression and

Performance-Based Funding in American Higher Education: A Systematic Synthesis of the Intended and Unintended Consequences

“…The authors found no evidence to suggest that PBF programs impacted total degree completions, first-to-second year retention, 6-year graduation rates, or bachelor’s degree completions. Similar findings have emerged in a host of quasi-experimental studies related to the impact of PBF on associate degree completion at community colleges in Ohio (Hillman et al, 2018), Washington (Hillman et al, 2015), and Tennessee (Hillman et al, 2018; Li & Ortagus, 2019). These single, or in some cases, few state studies provide strong evidence that PBF policies have had no impact on degree completion outcomes in a variety of state contexts.…”

“…Several quasi-experimental studies have employed a DD regression approach and shown that PBF can lead to increases in the production of short-term certificates rather than associate degrees (Hillman et al, 2015, 2018; Hu, 2019; Li & Kennedy, 2018; Li & Ortagus, 2019). Hillman et al (2018) examined two of the most robust PBF-participating states, Tennessee and Ohio, and found that Tennessee community colleges responded to PBF by producing more certificates rather than longer-term associate or bachelor’s degrees.…”

“…Hillman et al (2018) examined two of the most robust PBF-participating states, Tennessee and Ohio, and found that Tennessee community colleges responded to PBF by producing more certificates rather than longer-term associate or bachelor’s degrees. Li and Ortagus (2019) examined the impact of the 2010 Complete College Tennessee Act (CCTA), which increased the share of PBF from 5.45% to 85% according to the study. The authors reported that CCTA adoption increased short- and medium-term certificates but had no impact on associate degrees.…”

“…In sum, prior research employing a host of empirical strategies to isolate the causal effect of PBF on unintended consequences has shown that PBF policies were associated with restricting access to certain types of students who may have been deemed less likely than their peers to graduate, such as low-income students and underrepresented minority students (Birdsall, 2018; Umbricht et al, 2017). Additional literature typically using a similar quasi-experimental approach also suggests that PBF policies lead to gaming of the PBF system by focusing on short-term certificate production (Hillman et al, 2018; Hillman et al, 2015; Li & Ortagus, 2019) and a funding structure in which disadvantaged student groups and institution types face further disadvantages following PBF adoption (Hagood, 2019). In response to the equity concerns described above, several PBF-adopting states have amended their PBF policies to include equity bonuses or premiums, but the limited body of evidence pertaining to the efficacy of equity premiums reveals conflicting, but at least somewhat promising, results regarding their impact on Black, Hispanic, and low-income student enrollment (Gándara & Rutherford, 2018).…”

Four Decades of Performance Funding and Counting

“…In other words, within states that have a PF policy, colleges will act in ways aimed at improving performance because colleges are provided material incentives from the state (Dougherty and Hong 2006 ; Dougherty and Reddy 2013 ). Studies incorporating a resource dependency perspective typically suggest that colleges that rely more heavily on state appropriations (such as community colleges) will be more likely to engage in the desired behaviors of improving stated student outcomes (Hu 2019 ; Li and Ortagus 2019 ).…”